Is it logical for “restrictions” on “freedom” to exist? This inquiry comes to my mind whenever I find some advocates of liberalism in the Middle East contradicting themselves so they can avoid clashing with societal thoughts, and so they can attract people to their ranks without giving the slightest consideration of the absolute meaning of the principles that they call for. These principles, of course, contradict with the principles of the society and its inherited tenets.

Freedom, as I learned it, understood it, and believed in it, is the removal of all restrictions from the human being’s burden. Slavery, which is its antithesis, means the submission of the human being by imposing some restrictions on his life for the purpose of controlling him. Where restrictions are found, freedom disappears, and where freedom is found, the restrictions fall. This is obvious and does not require practical evidence, and it is illogical to object to it on the grounds that societal principles or religious beliefs must be taken into account. Either absolute freedom is our goal, or we be honest with ourselves and declare our hatred and rejection of it, and declare our preference to surrendering to restrictions over having freedom handed to us.

Freedom’s denial of restrictions does not mean that the human being has the complete freedom to do everything he is able to do. Being powerful does not mean that I am free to subjugate he who is less powerful than I am. For one of the most important principles of freedom is to not trespass on the limits of others’ freedoms; this is so that freedom will be meaningful, and not be merely a justification for the actions of those who take advantage of their power to subdue others. Freedom – coupled with responsibility – is a right for all human beings with no distinction, and in order to have this right implemented in a realistic picture, every individual must respect the freedom of others and not degrade it. The law is what organizes this matter, and prevents individuals from trespassing on each other in the name of freedom.

Which brings up an important point: The fundamental function of the law is to organize the relationships of individuals with each other within the society, and to protect their freedoms from being exploited or degraded. Do lawmakers have a right to impose on
others – on the freedoms of human beings – additional restrictions that have nothing to do with avoiding the trespassing of some individuals on the freedoms of others?!

For example: Does the law have the right to criminalize an individual’s action whose effect does not trespass the private life of his fellow man? And is it justifiable to impose on the citizen obligations, on the grounds of submission to the law, that in effect degrade his personal freedom? I think that this matter is not within the function that laws were created for, and hence, this is considered a departure of the law from the framework that was placed for it, and that is the protection of the freedoms of the individuals. And with that, it transforms from a tool of preserving individual freedoms to a new restriction on it, which has no benefit apart from subjugating the individuals for the sake of a new societal organization that sanctifies the law more than its sanctification of the individual (the deity).

The arrival of the individual preceded the formation of the societal organization, and this formation is what founded the law. And as is known, one of the most important functions that this organization was formed for is the protection of the rights of the individuals from degradation under the protection of the law. Therefore, it is the individual, whose arrival had preceded these legislations, who must enjoy sanctity and respect, and not the law (the follower), which is supposed to protect the rights of the individuals, not degrade these rights.

Regardless of whether this law is a custom, a religious legislation, or positivistic, it cannot, under any circumstances, be placed above human beings, and it cannot be pressed on them, on their desires, or on their wills in life. Laws are nothing but deaf, rigid provisions, whereas the human being is a mass of live emotions which we have no right to press on it this deaf entity, and we have no right to submit him through its provisions.

Verily, we must return to the beginning and define the function of the law in our lives. And before that, we must convince the human being of his individual sanctity, and that nothing surpasses him in importance and standing besides himself. Following that, the law is a follower, protector, and organizer of his life. It is not a tool of suppression with which whoever is behind it aims to create a new deity the human being will prostrate to and sanctify.

This comes from translations of Kareem Amer’s blog, which he titled as: There Is No Diety but the Human Being.This young man is one of the most progressive thinkers to date and his writing is amazing. What is more amazing is that although h…

Waleed

i smell deception

according to what you said earlier….

“I’d like to make it clear that the creators and main supporters of the Free Kareem campaign are Muslim, and we are doing this despite what Kareem said about our religion. Free speech doesn’t mean “speech that you approve of.” It includes criticism.”

also what the hell is “no Kareem bashing” policy mean in a website defending a person’s right to free speech!!?

i smell deception…and a small bit of hypocrisy maybe?

Admin

Waleed,

I urge you to look at the right definition of freedom of speech.

Publishing a translation of this article means that we are helping people understand what Kareem wrote. We are exposing his thoughts, which don’t reflect our personal thoughts. We do NOT approve of it. Do not assume that when we clearly stated, more than once, that we do not agree or approve of what he said. People have the right to know what Kareem wrote, especially if they want to support this campaign.

also what the hell is “no Kareem bashing” policy mean in a website defending a person’s right to free speech!!?

There is a difference between being brutal, asking for Kareem’s death, and taking good advantage of free speech by allowing people like Kareem to speak up despite the fact that you may disagree with what is said.

This is a campaign, and by definiton campaigns are supportive of a particular case or issue. If you do not support Kareem, and you think he deserves what he is going through just because you disagree with his personal opinions, then we have every right to enforce our policy.

Violent remarks will not be tolerated for the sake of this campaign. This is an informative website, not a place to bash a person who is going through more than enough just because he expressed an opinion.

Furthermore, we have created a forum for you to go to if you want to express your disgust or dislike for Kareem. This means that we are open to criticism and are willing to refute the claims made against us and this campaign.

If you would like to make a supportive comment, continue posting, but if you are going to make baseless assumptions and accuse us of agreeing with Kareem when we clearly stated that we don’t, then you may feel free to visit our forum and do so there.

[...] http://www.freekareem.org/ – publishing a weekly digest of developments and a translation of some of the incriminating posts. [...]

http://isonomist.blogspot.com Isonomist

Free speech should be granted to all, especially those we disagree with, for it is from them that often we can learn the most. At the same time, I happen to think that this particular article is beautiful, forceful, courageous, and by and large correct. There is nothing shameful about that position.

[...] You can read our English translation here: There Is No Deity but the Human Being. Translations of more of his writings are available on our What Kareem Said page. Lunedì 11 settembre 2006 Non c’è altra divinità se non l’essere umano [...]

Sumaiyah

Salaams,

Sorry to say but I somewhat agree with Waleed. If you are campaigning for Kareem then it does essentially mean you support him and his writings. You can’t very well expect people to believe you are ONLY supporting him for the sake of his “freedom of speech”. If that’s the case….would you also support and campaign for those people who made the cartoons about the Prophet (Peace be Upon him) and the countless other people who bash our religion?

Kareem wrote: “Regardless of whether this law is a custom, a religious legislation, or positivistic, it cannot, under any circumstances, be placed above human beings, and it cannot be pressed on them, on their desires, or on their wills in life. Laws are nothing but deaf, rigid provisions, whereas the human being is a mass of live emotions which we have no right to press on it this deaf entity, and we have no right to submit him through its provisions…”

You wrote: “Free speech doesn’t mean “speech that you approve of.” It includes criticism.”

I say to you that what Karem has written is NOT simply criticism……it is wrong and blasphemous, full stop.

You are campaigning for someone who thinks himself better than his creator…how arrogant of him and ignorant of you. Do you not realize that allowing people like Kareem to “speak up” (as you put it) sows the seed of discord among Muslims and Non-Muslims? He must be stopped and someone must give him advice to help him understand there are in fact other ways to give critisim in a way that is contructive and not destructive.

Your website has left me feeling a bit uncomfortable. Sumaiyah

Admin

Sorry Sumaiyah, but you are entirely incorrect in your assumptions. We, the creators of this campaign, are Muslims. Proud to be Muslims. We disagree with what Kareem said, this doesn’t mean that we had no right to support him. We support him as his friends and his colleagues who believe in his innocence. And no matter what he said, blasphemous or not (I agree with you that what he said is distasteful, insulting, and not productive in any way), he still DOES have the right to express it without fear of imprisonment. You really think that due to his blog posts, he should be locked up? Really? Is that your way of defining progress within the Arab and Muslim world, lock up whoever disagrees with you? No.

You simply can’t blame us for starting a campaign in support of all kinds of speech – moreover, you can’t accuse us at all of agreeing with what he said. Kareem himself knows how much we disagree with him. He knows this very well. So please, keep all assumptions aside.

Kareem is in prison merely because of blog posts. Do you have any idea how horrific that is? The fact that someone expressing an opinion, no matter how hideous that opinion may seem, can risk imprisonment? Do you want to live in an intellectually sheltered society where no one is free to speak their minds anymore because they may be imprisoned?

Secondly no matter what you believe, Kareem was also sentenced to 1 year for insulting the President. Do you really think that’s fair?

Think about it Sumaiyah, don’t just accuse us and this campaign of things that aren’t true at all. Think about what you’re saying and how much it can harm our region.

Sumaiyah

Ok, contine to support the apostate Kareem (and so long as he continues to make such remarks that’s what he is), but remember you will get no rewards for helping the enemies of Islam.

Have you forgotten the words of our Prophet (Peace be Upon him) when he said, “If you have nothing good to say, then remain silent”? Kareem should remain silent when compelled to say such blasphemous things. I’m not completly heartless though…I realize how extremely unbearable prison must be but Kareem should have thought well and hard about the consequences of his actions before he abused his so called rights to free speech.

And contrary to what you believe, not every passing thought and opinion we have needs to be verbalized and/or publicized, whether written on a blog or stamped on one’s forhead. It’s a matter of self-repose and self-restraint.

And I wonder if when you wrote: “Think about what you’re saying and how much it can harm our region”.

Did you mean, “religion”, was this a typo? Because if it were and your concerns were more in line with our religion verses only the progressivism of the Arab region, then perhaps I could respect you more. Supporting a more progressive Muslim nation (and region) is one thing but compromising our beliefs during the process is quite another.

And don’t bother replying, as I will not return to your website so long as you support the free speech of apostates and the like.

Admin

I won’t bother replying, as I’ve witnessed enough shame from the likes of you in this region.

Post Graduate

Sumaiyah,

Apostate or not, the arguement by Kareem’s supporters and the creators of this site is not one based on religion, rather on the (il)legality of Amer’s detention.

Take a look at Article 19 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights which states:

“Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference… Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, recieve and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print… or through any other media of his choice.”

Egypt ratified this treaty on 14 April 1982, thereby legally allowing for the freedom of expression for all individuals.

In addition, freedom of expression is provided for in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; in Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights; in Article 22 of the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam; and in Article XII of the Universal ISLAMIC Declaration of Human Rights. Egypt has acceeded to all of the aforementioned documents. Furthermore, Articles 47 and 48 of the Egypt Constitution provides for the same freedoms.

While Egypt is presently in a “State of Emergency”, and therefore expression can be supressed if it poses a threat to national security or public order, this is largely unfounded in Kareem’s case.

I write this email with no intended disrespect and I value your opinions. But the important thing here is not whose opinion is correct, rather that we are all able to voice them!

God bless!

anony

“Sorry to say but I somewhat agree with Waleed. If you are campaigning for Kareem then it does essentially mean you support him and his writings.”

That is illogical.

One can support free speech and freedom of oppression without agreeing with that speech.

Noam Chomsky, for example, is a Jew who believes that the Holocaust happened, and that it was evil.

Nevertheless, he fights very hard for the right of people in Europe to say that it did not happen. He is a very smart man, and he knows the Holocaust happened, and he knows it was a bad thing, yet he fights for free speech, for the freedom of those he disagrees with!

Free speech is more important than whether or not someone says something offensive. If it is offensive and untrue, you can use your free speech to fight it. You shouldn’t have to jail people.

If you do jail people to intimidate them from arguing, YOUR side becomes weak, because you no longer have to practice making solid arguments. Then when you come across people new to the issue, you can’t do anything except threaten them, or give poor arguments. You then lose, in the big picture… unless you can put the whole world in an Egyptian jail??? Don’t think so.

Torsten

Some of the posts here show how intolerant some people are against those who do not agree with some aspects of religion. Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhist and Atheists should discuss, not fight each other, and should all together try to make the world a better place.